It ought to concern everyone that the Miami state government is looking to cut spending on the judiciary. Read some of the flawed commentary:
"They must be joking, who is buying this line of reasoning? The lawyer that wrote and maybe a few lawyers and judges".
A reply to this was:
"Right -- we don't need no civil court system. Let's just beat each other over the head when we have disagreements -- or better yet -- shootouts! They're great for the economy. Malls really pack in the shoppers when they know there is a good chance they can take a bullet on the way to the sales racks. And don't forget what violence does to tourism. Conde Nast Traveler recently listed 'fear of shooting' as a big selling point for wealthy European tourist!Is anyone buying into your line of reasoning? Maybe a few Tea Party desperates and Civil War reenactors. Even in the most small -government, libertarian view, a civil and criminal court system is the most necessary and basic function of government".
My response is:
I think they both miss the point. Yes, the judiciary is important, but that depends upon what it is that the judiciary is enforcing. We had a pretty good common law system, and it was thrown out with the bath water in sympathy to the desires of legislators to develop statutory law. Statutory law is not an objective (rational) standard of justice. It is based on legislature appeasement, concessions/exemptions, etc, as opposed to principles held in context of other principles. It has resulted in justice descending to arbitrary law, which we of course associate with arbitrary authoritarian rule. Democracy is thus merely a legitimatised form of tyranny.
Plans to cut spending on judiciary invoke plans to cut back upon the most important aspect of govt work. Quite the paradox don't you think?
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
